Anybody who says theres a level playing field is a lying sack of crap who has been helping tilt the damn field.
Tom3
· 1 year ago
The town of Eureka Springs is turning into the "San Francisco of Arkansas," warns the American Family Association, and it can happen in your town too.
"They're Coming to Your Town," tells the tale of an uncharacteristically diverse resort town's government infiltrated by "a handful of homosexual activists" and bent to their will through the enactment of the town's domestic partner registry on June 22, 2007.
"Watch, and learn," says the trailer, "how to fight a well-organized gay agenda to take over the cities of America, one city at a time."
Of all the industrialized countries, America is the one where you are least likely to "rise above your station". The least likely. It still happens, and those rare occurances are trumpeted to the masses as if they are the norm, not aberrations.
Tom3
· 1 year ago
The last time reich wingnuts ran Italy, their secret service forged the yellowcake letter and helped create the Big Lie to start the war in Iraq.
Rab
· 1 year ago
Incredible, we live in a nation that bases whether you go to higher learning on how much money you have, not on your level of intelligence. Thats why we wind up with shrubs.
Tom3
· 1 year ago
That fucking Berlusconi is a crook. Stupid dagos. They are as stupid as all the rednecks here who voted for Chimpy twice.
jimpharo
· 1 year ago
I think this is a social phenomenon that is in reaction to the increasing polarization of financial security, and is at least in part the product of a concerted effort to put it there.
Slaves owners hated the slaves they owned because their presence was a very damning reminder of the sins of the owner. 1950's white America hated blacks for similar reasons. At some point, the idea arose that hating all those black people wasn't racist, because some black people were OK. No, it must be that the problem is poor people.
And it stuck. Reagan milked it for two terms -- those darn "welfare queens." The idea became firmly rooted that rich people deserved every penny and poor people's poverty was an external manifestation of their incompetence and ineptitude. In other words, poor people deserved to be poor.
It sure makes being wealthy a great deal less shame-inducing if you keep telling yourself over and over that your wealth is deserved because you're so darn hard-working, smart, persistent, etc. You'll also feel better realizing that poor people are poor because they've brought it on themselves. There is simply nothing that anyone could do for them.
On an individual level, I'm fine with waging all out class-warfare to strip the wealthiest of their excessive and unneeded wealth, and to start spending it to improve the lot of the poor. We can argue constructively about how best to help the poor, but the first few steps are not controversial: decent health care, quality education, decent housing, jobs, etc.
Once we realize that success depends primarily on luck, we stop getting distracted with a lot of nonsense.
Tom3
· 1 year ago
ohn McCain has dropped the 'R' bomb.
At an Associated Press forum in Washington, D.C. Monday, the Arizona Republican senator said that he believes the country is in a recession.
nicho
· 1 year ago
If you want to know whether someone is "elite," ask if they have a resume.
We know that George Bush has never written a resume and never had to write a college admission essay. Nor has anyone in his family. When they needed to get into a school or get a job, someone picked up the phone and it happened.
I'm willing to bet Chelsea Clinton never spent hours over a resume. When she was ready for work, a phone call was made and she had a job. I can't imagine Chelsea - or the Bush twins, sitting in their room trying to concoct convincing cover letters and then stuffing envelopes full of resumes and letters. Never happened.
mauro7inf
· 1 year ago
One thing about college admissions is that they aren't based on test scores. What matters are grades, extracurriculars, service, and things of that sort, and if you're from a rich family, you have much easier access to the "right" extracurriculars, for instance. Your stay-at-home mother has taken you to tennis lessons since you were eight, your piano teacher comes over to your grand piano twice a week, you have enough of an allowance that you can go to band rehearsal once a week (yeah, my high school was that awesome -- once a week, AND we rocked at competition), you've had a math tutor teaching you more advanced concepts since you were in fourth grade and enticing your intellectual curiosity, you can write your essay about your experience mountain biking in Hawaii one summer, and so on. It seems that the point of the post is that you got in because your family has money; that's not the right conclusion to draw from this -- rather, your life has made you a better candidate for admission because your family has money. It's an indirect relationship. I imagine that, if I had to earn money for school trips myself, I might not have gone to national competitions and therefore not accumulated many of the items on my college application resume. As far as I can tell, it's still largely a meritocracy, but there are steep costs to the merit itself.
We've been talking about the Olympics recently, so as an illustration, consider an Olympic gymnast. She has made it to the Olympics because she is so skilled at gymnastics; we can assume that the competition judges along the way were not influenced by her parents' income. But if you look at poorer countries, you'll notice they send much smaller delegations -- this is because it actually takes a lot of money to be good at gymnastics and other sports. You need access to facilities, facilities, tutors, coaches, 9 hours a day to spend practicing, the right nutrition, and possibly national support to help you if you can't do those things yourself. Is that a meritocracy? Yeah, definitely. But to get the merit, you incur large costs.
I don't think it's fair to say that your family's income affects your chances of college unless it's made clear that this is an indirect relationship and not a direct one.
nicho
· 1 year ago
mauro7inf 14 minutes ago
One thing about college admissions is that they aren't based on test scores. What matters are grades, extracurriculars, service, and things of that sort, and if you're from a rich family, you have much easier access to the "right" extracurriculars, for instance.
Well, when I applied to college -- sometime in the stone age, I actually received a letter in which they informed me that I was quite well qualified, but that they had a limited number of spaces left and they were reserving them for sons of alumni and the sons of benefactors. They actually said that. I wish I had saved the letter.
Viceroy
· 1 year ago
The problem here is that what do people work for if not to give their children additonal advantages? What is the point of working hard, building a business, and generally seeking to be a success and making a postive contribution to society, if there are no benefits tacked on? What society has ever existed in which those in the upper strata do not enjoy advantages to which others have less access? There has never been such a society and there never will. The only thing we can do is try to keep the doors open and make oppportunity somewhat more available for those with talent from any socioeconomic background. This class warfare theme is pointless and self-defeating. Believe it or not, we NEED our elites, they are the ones who create businesses, hire people, donate money to colleges, pay most of the taxes, you name it. You cannot run a society for the primary benefit of its least productive groups,not and have it survive. By the way, if you are so down on the elites, why are you so dedicated to electing members of it like Obama and Clinton into power?
All Comments
http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/afa041408.html
Surrender, Dorothy!!
Thank you A.J.
"They're Coming to Your Town," tells the tale of an uncharacteristically diverse resort town's government infiltrated by "a handful of homosexual activists" and bent to their will through the enactment of the town's domestic partner registry on June 22, 2007.
"Watch, and learn," says the trailer, "how to fight a well-organized gay agenda to take over the cities of America, one city at a time."
italy right 163 left 141
right + 10seats
The least likely.
It still happens, and those rare occurances are trumpeted to the masses as if they are the norm, not aberrations.
Slaves owners hated the slaves they owned because their presence was a very damning reminder of the sins of the owner. 1950's white America hated blacks for similar reasons. At some point, the idea arose that hating all those black people wasn't racist, because some black people were OK. No, it must be that the problem is poor people.
And it stuck. Reagan milked it for two terms -- those darn "welfare queens." The idea became firmly rooted that rich people deserved every penny and poor people's poverty was an external manifestation of their incompetence and ineptitude. In other words, poor people deserved to be poor.
It sure makes being wealthy a great deal less shame-inducing if you keep telling yourself over and over that your wealth is deserved because you're so darn hard-working, smart, persistent, etc. You'll also feel better realizing that poor people are poor because they've brought it on themselves. There is simply nothing that anyone could do for them.
On an individual level, I'm fine with waging all out class-warfare to strip the wealthiest of their excessive and unneeded wealth, and to start spending it to improve the lot of the poor. We can argue constructively about how best to help the poor, but the first few steps are not controversial: decent health care, quality education, decent housing, jobs, etc.
Once we realize that success depends primarily on luck, we stop getting distracted with a lot of nonsense.
At an Associated Press forum in Washington, D.C. Monday, the Arizona Republican senator said that he believes the country is in a recession.
We know that George Bush has never written a resume and never had to write a college admission essay. Nor has anyone in his family. When they needed to get into a school or get a job, someone picked up the phone and it happened.
I'm willing to bet Chelsea Clinton never spent hours over a resume. When she was ready for work, a phone call was made and she had a job. I can't imagine Chelsea - or the Bush twins, sitting in their room trying to concoct convincing cover letters and then stuffing envelopes full of resumes and letters. Never happened.
We've been talking about the Olympics recently, so as an illustration, consider an Olympic gymnast. She has made it to the Olympics because she is so skilled at gymnastics; we can assume that the competition judges along the way were not influenced by her parents' income. But if you look at poorer countries, you'll notice they send much smaller delegations -- this is because it actually takes a lot of money to be good at gymnastics and other sports. You need access to facilities, facilities, tutors, coaches, 9 hours a day to spend practicing, the right nutrition, and possibly national support to help you if you can't do those things yourself. Is that a meritocracy? Yeah, definitely. But to get the merit, you incur large costs.
I don't think it's fair to say that your family's income affects your chances of college unless it's made clear that this is an indirect relationship and not a direct one.
One thing about college admissions is that they aren't based on test scores. What matters are grades, extracurriculars, service, and things of that sort, and if you're from a rich family, you have much easier access to the "right" extracurriculars, for instance.
Well, when I applied to college -- sometime in the stone age, I actually received a letter in which they informed me that I was quite well qualified, but that they had a limited number of spaces left and they were reserving them for sons of alumni and the sons of benefactors. They actually said that. I wish I had saved the letter.